Disease State or Branded Ads? Not a Simple Choice.
? |
|
?…Seriously consider non-branded ads…? |
When does it make sense not to do a branded ad and instead focus on category building? This choice is faced by every new drug in the launch stage. Obviously for the 5th me-too in a category, branded is the only real option to establish a piece of the awareness pie.
For a first in a class or second in a class launch the answer is not so easy. The ability to discuss a new treatment option without naming it has many advantages. The most significant is you can run a 30-second ad instead of 60?s filled with 30 seconds of fair balance. If you choose the non-branded route, you are counting on physicians, the media, and advocacy groups to do the branded work for you.
Most drug companies opt for the branded ad because they hate to let some competitor get a free ride off their disease ad. On the other hand, the ultimate goal is getting a nice return from the advertising regardless of whether a competitor gets a benefit. The disease ad can also be somewhat branded by using some catchphrase that doctors instantly recognize being from your brand.
For example, I like the Low T education DTC from Abbott. It is very simple and clear in its discussion of what the symptoms of low testosterone are and how that affects your life. I am sure their drug Androgel is known by physicians as the Low T drug. If I mention Low T to my doctor he will likely know I am talking about Abbott?s drug. There are other treatments for Low T including patches and injections but my guess is a Low T discussion will lead to mostly Abbott?s Androgel. After all, the detail force has alerted the doctors in advance that the Low T campaign is from Abbott.
My advice to brand managers in a launch mode is to seriously consider non-branded ads and perhaps ditch the branded campaign. That proposition can and should be market tested versus a branded ad. By advertising in some markets with branded ads versus some with disease only ads, a brand team can see in the real world which approach is getting more scripts. I know the inclination is to want to proudly announce the name of your new brand to consumers but that may not be the most profitable strategy. If you can run twice as many disease ads as branded ads at the same cost, then the ROI may be better using a disease only approach.
The disease approach opens up the agency?s creativity. Without worrying about all the fair balance, a disease commercial can use a more attention getting creative element. Many branded ads suffer from the mandatory slow pacing, required supers, and overly technical language.
I cannot say which is type of ad is ultimately better, but I can say it is a highly testable proposition. Given all the extra cost of running a branded ad with its indication, there is no shame in not running a branded ad as long as your education ad is driving interest and doctor discussions.
Bob Ehrlich, Chairman
DTC Perspectives, Inc
Comments are closed.